Small hint for future reference:
Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science sites are not credible sources of scientific information.
...that have caused me to become very bitter at those who make “appeals to authority” in their posts here yet include little or no information that has any value.
Links to scientific studies published in the medical literature are not, in fact, "appeals to authority." They are direct links to the pertinent information. Your inability to read and understand the medical/scientific literature does not constitute a failure to provide information on my part.
one would think that you might be upset by peer reviewed evidence showed that the studies used to get the emergency use authorizations (EUA) by Pfizer excluded data and were doctored
You don't really understand what peer-reviewed evidence is or how to recognize it, do you?
Your only "proof" that any Pfizer studies were "doctored" consists of a link to The Epoch Times. While I would be willing to read a conspiratorial "news" site in order to find the original studies the conspiracists misrepresented, The Epoch Times informs me that I have read my limit of articles and will have to subscribe to read any more. Yeah, that's not happening.
Groups like The Epoch Times get away with making claims of hidden data, etc., because they know that their readers are not inclined to do their own research and don't know how to find the information anyway. So let me help you out a bit with actual links:
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
This FDA web page contains links to several documents. I would draw your attention to the "Fact sheet" link for healthcare providers and the "Decision memorandum" issued Sept 11, 2023. These are both highly technical documents which contain information about the clinical trials, vaccine formulation, supporting studies published in the medical literature, etc. These are not light reading; the fact sheet is 60 pages and the decision memo is 37 pages. And the links and references provided within the documents add many more pages of information.
Clinicaltrials.gov This is a searchable database of registered clinical trials. You can search for a trial on any subject you like. I searched for "Covid-19" "mRNA" and "vaccine" and found 322 studies. Hmm, if "big pharma" were trying to hide stuff, they wouldn't put it in a searchable database for anyone to find it, would they?
Pubmed search for "covid vaccine." This search turned up over 64 thousand results. The search can always be refined by adding search terms such as "side effects" or "efficacy", etc.
We have both been advocates for the use of vaccines to save lives.
I very often see such claims inserted into the same old same old antivax rhetoric that has been around for the last 200 years. Even that statement is suspiciously similar to the statement "We're not against vaccines, we're just FOR safe vaccines" that has been said ad nauseum during previous antivax campaigns. So, let's just say that I suspect that use of such language is an attempt to be disingenuous.
I found this article published in Newsweek in Feb 2019: 9 Anti-Vaxxer Myths Debunked.
Amazing. Every antivaxxer myth in that article is said almost unchanged about the Covid vaccines. (The claim about Covid vaccine is that it substitutes "turbo-cancer" or something similar for "autism.")
Links to scientific studies published in the medical literature are not, in fact, “appeals to authority.” They are direct links to the pertinent information. Your inability to read and understand the medical/scientific literature does not constitute a failure to provide information on my part.
one would think that you might be upset by peer reviewed evidence showed that the studies used to get the emergency use authorizations (EUA) by Pfizer excluded data and were doctored
You don’t really understand what peer-reviewed evidence is or how to recognize it, do you?
__________________________________
More Than 1,000 Peer Reviewed Articles On COVID Vaccine Injuries
Clinicaltrials.gov This is a searchable database of registered clinical trials. You can search for a trial on any subject you like. I searched for “Covid-19” “mRNA” and “vaccine” and found 322 studies. Hmm, if “big pharma” were trying to hide stuff, they wouldn’t put it in a searchable database for anyone to find it, would they?
____________________________
I’ll see your 322 studies and raise you 678.
I assume by now you’ve removed me from your government account Christmas card list?
Hydroxychloroquine Associated With Lower COVID-19 Mortality: French Study
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hydroxychloroquine-associated-lower-covid-19-mortality-study
I thank you again for your response. You have put a lot of effort into this thread in the face of some harsh criticism.
I am sorry there was a typo in my last post to you. It was post 113 where you said, “Sometimes, having the PhD level of knowledge is a disadvantage for making a concise point.” Your byline says, “Dr. exDemMom, infectious disease and vaccines research specialist.” It seems that you are telling us that you have a PhD in infectious diseases and vaccines. Is that correct or am I misinterpreting what you have said?
The following link is to the about page of the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research
“The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is a peer-reviewed scholarly open access journal concerning the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines and their components. All content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose.”
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR
In your opinion is the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research a “Conspiracy and antivax/anti-science site”?
Are the authors of the following article, and study Corinne A. Michels, PhD; Daniel Perrier, BSEE; Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, MD; Ed Clark, MSE; Joseph Gehrett, MD; Barbara Gehrett, MD; Kim Kwiatek, MD; Sarah Adams, RN; Robert Chandler, MD; Leah A. Stagno, BS, AAS; Tony Damian CMT, CST, RMT; Erika Delph, RPh; and Chris Flowers, MD “antivaxers and conspiracy theorists”?
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/86/224
The peer reviewed article and study end with this statement, “Had the FDA been aware of the cardiac event signal documented in this report, regulators might have given second thoughts regarding safety problems with the mRNA vaccine, as was seen in the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle. Despite evidence of the validity of the early warning signals and other adverse events reported in the post-marketing of the mRNA vaccines, this novel type of vaccine platform has not been removed from the market and has even been approved for children as young as 6 months. Why?”
In truth I am highly skeptical that the claims that you have made regarding your education and background are accurate. I am doubtful that you have the ability to read and comprehend the contents of the above peer reviewed study and article. Your PhD level expertise seems to be in labeling others anti-science, anti-vaxers, and conspiracy theorists. The only PhD you likely have is in the delivery of BS.
You do not believe in scientific principles or scientific ethics. You do not believe in science you believe in Scientism. You are not a scientist. You have put a lot of effort into trying to convince others that we should trust big pharma, Joe Biden, and the Democrats claims about the safety of the “vaccines”. You have made insults and false characterizations about many here. You have had a few allies in this effort, but as far as I can tell you have failed to change the opinions of anyone here who is capable of critical thought.
See what happens when you lose credibility? You start having to go more and more to populist sources which are themselves even less reliable than the so-called "Grifter" sites you are using as strawmen.
Really? Quoting Newsweek as an Authoritative source on FR?